Reliability of radiologists’ first impression when interpreting a screening mammogram
Previous studies showed that radiologists can detect the gist of an abnormality in a mammogram based on a half-second image presentation through global processing of screening mammograms. This study investigated the intra- and inter-observer reliability of the radiologists’ initial impressions about...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2023-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10128970/?tool=EBI |
| _version_ | 1797837895581564928 |
|---|---|
| author | Ziba Gandomkar Somphone Siviengphanom Mo’ayyad Suleiman Dennis Wong Warren Reed Ernest U. Ekpo Dong Xu Sarah J. Lewis Karla K. Evans Jeremy M. Wolfe Patrick C. Brennan |
| author_facet | Ziba Gandomkar Somphone Siviengphanom Mo’ayyad Suleiman Dennis Wong Warren Reed Ernest U. Ekpo Dong Xu Sarah J. Lewis Karla K. Evans Jeremy M. Wolfe Patrick C. Brennan |
| author_sort | Ziba Gandomkar |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Previous studies showed that radiologists can detect the gist of an abnormality in a mammogram based on a half-second image presentation through global processing of screening mammograms. This study investigated the intra- and inter-observer reliability of the radiologists’ initial impressions about the abnormality (or "gist signal"). It also examined if a subset of radiologists produced more reliable and accurate gist signals. Thirty-nine radiologists provided their initial impressions on two separate occasions, viewing each mammogram for half a second each time. The intra-class correlation (ICC) values showed poor to moderate intra-reader reliability. Only 13 radiologists had an ICC of 0.6 or above, which is considered the minimum standard for reliability, and only three radiologists had an ICC exceeding 0.7. The median value for the weighted Cohen’s Kappa was 0.478 (interquartile range = 0.419–0.555). The Mann-Whitney U-test showed that the "Gist Experts", defined as those who outperformed others, had significantly higher ICC values (p = 0.002) and weighted Cohen’s Kappa scores (p = 0.026). However, even for these experts, the intra-radiologist agreements were not strong, as an ICC of at least 0.75 indicates good reliability and the signal from none of the readers reached this level of reliability as determined by ICC values. The inter-reader reliability of the gist signal was poor, with an ICC score of 0.31 (CI = 0.26–0.37). The Fleiss Kappa score of 0.106 (CI = 0.105–0.106), indicating only slight inter-reader agreement, confirms the findings from the ICC analysis. The intra- and inter-reader reliability analysis showed that the radiologists’ initial impressions are not reliable signals. In particular, the absence of an abnormal gist does not reliably signal a normal case, so radiologists should keep searching. This highlights the importance of "discovery scanning," or coarse screening to detect potential targets before ending the visual search. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-09T15:32:02Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-364c6eed0c9d484f931f4304ec40aead |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-09T15:32:02Z |
| publishDate | 2023-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj.art-364c6eed0c9d484f931f4304ec40aead2023-04-28T05:31:55ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032023-01-01184Reliability of radiologists’ first impression when interpreting a screening mammogramZiba GandomkarSomphone SiviengphanomMo’ayyad SuleimanDennis WongWarren ReedErnest U. EkpoDong XuSarah J. LewisKarla K. EvansJeremy M. WolfePatrick C. BrennanPrevious studies showed that radiologists can detect the gist of an abnormality in a mammogram based on a half-second image presentation through global processing of screening mammograms. This study investigated the intra- and inter-observer reliability of the radiologists’ initial impressions about the abnormality (or "gist signal"). It also examined if a subset of radiologists produced more reliable and accurate gist signals. Thirty-nine radiologists provided their initial impressions on two separate occasions, viewing each mammogram for half a second each time. The intra-class correlation (ICC) values showed poor to moderate intra-reader reliability. Only 13 radiologists had an ICC of 0.6 or above, which is considered the minimum standard for reliability, and only three radiologists had an ICC exceeding 0.7. The median value for the weighted Cohen’s Kappa was 0.478 (interquartile range = 0.419–0.555). The Mann-Whitney U-test showed that the "Gist Experts", defined as those who outperformed others, had significantly higher ICC values (p = 0.002) and weighted Cohen’s Kappa scores (p = 0.026). However, even for these experts, the intra-radiologist agreements were not strong, as an ICC of at least 0.75 indicates good reliability and the signal from none of the readers reached this level of reliability as determined by ICC values. The inter-reader reliability of the gist signal was poor, with an ICC score of 0.31 (CI = 0.26–0.37). The Fleiss Kappa score of 0.106 (CI = 0.105–0.106), indicating only slight inter-reader agreement, confirms the findings from the ICC analysis. The intra- and inter-reader reliability analysis showed that the radiologists’ initial impressions are not reliable signals. In particular, the absence of an abnormal gist does not reliably signal a normal case, so radiologists should keep searching. This highlights the importance of "discovery scanning," or coarse screening to detect potential targets before ending the visual search.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10128970/?tool=EBI |
| spellingShingle | Ziba Gandomkar Somphone Siviengphanom Mo’ayyad Suleiman Dennis Wong Warren Reed Ernest U. Ekpo Dong Xu Sarah J. Lewis Karla K. Evans Jeremy M. Wolfe Patrick C. Brennan Reliability of radiologists’ first impression when interpreting a screening mammogram PLoS ONE |
| title | Reliability of radiologists’ first impression when interpreting a screening mammogram |
| title_full | Reliability of radiologists’ first impression when interpreting a screening mammogram |
| title_fullStr | Reliability of radiologists’ first impression when interpreting a screening mammogram |
| title_full_unstemmed | Reliability of radiologists’ first impression when interpreting a screening mammogram |
| title_short | Reliability of radiologists’ first impression when interpreting a screening mammogram |
| title_sort | reliability of radiologists first impression when interpreting a screening mammogram |
| url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10128970/?tool=EBI |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT zibagandomkar reliabilityofradiologistsfirstimpressionwheninterpretingascreeningmammogram AT somphonesiviengphanom reliabilityofradiologistsfirstimpressionwheninterpretingascreeningmammogram AT moayyadsuleiman reliabilityofradiologistsfirstimpressionwheninterpretingascreeningmammogram AT denniswong reliabilityofradiologistsfirstimpressionwheninterpretingascreeningmammogram AT warrenreed reliabilityofradiologistsfirstimpressionwheninterpretingascreeningmammogram AT ernestuekpo reliabilityofradiologistsfirstimpressionwheninterpretingascreeningmammogram AT dongxu reliabilityofradiologistsfirstimpressionwheninterpretingascreeningmammogram AT sarahjlewis reliabilityofradiologistsfirstimpressionwheninterpretingascreeningmammogram AT karlakevans reliabilityofradiologistsfirstimpressionwheninterpretingascreeningmammogram AT jeremymwolfe reliabilityofradiologistsfirstimpressionwheninterpretingascreeningmammogram AT patrickcbrennan reliabilityofradiologistsfirstimpressionwheninterpretingascreeningmammogram |